Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
